From the editorial at www.SciDev.net:
Historians of science have long known that Gregor Mendel, the 19th century Augustinian monk who discovered how genetic traits are inherited, ‘fudged’ some of his data. His experimental methods were not as rigorous as they should have been and he failed to publish results of experiments that did not turn out as expected. Such revelations show that science is less exact than many people would like to believe. But they do not invalidate Mendel’s insights, which have become the cornerstone of modern genetics.
The same could be said of the ‘Climategate’ row that erupted last month after emails were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The emails suggest that some university researchers may have selected favourable data in their publications to boost arguments about the severity of climate change and its origins in human activity.
Opponents of action on climate change have leapt upon the emails and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been forced onto the defensive, with its officials condemning publication of the emails as an illegal act intended to discredit the panel’s work. But dismissing the emails on the grounds that they were obtained illegally misses the important point that they show science to be a more human process than is usually portrayed. The emails reveal that the scientists who wrote them were frustrated by the attacks of critics and, like Mendel, were anxious to sharpen the strength of their conclusions.
To gain public trust, scientists are coming under increasing pressure to be open about how they achieve their results. However, if researchers are to be more transparent and avoid accusations of tampering with data as being unscientific, the public must also accept how science is actually practised. To achieve this, scientists must do more to present a human face when explaining their processes and practices instead of hiding behind the claim that science is entirely objective.
Climategate is teaching the IPCC this lesson the hard way. By relying excessively on the apparent objectivity of its research assessments to give the panel its authority, it has made itself and its conclusions politically vulnerable. Now any criticism that challenges the objectivity of research used by the IPCC, however minor, undermines the panel’s reputation.
The IPCC, to its credit, tries hard to be transparent in its own handling of scientific evidence by making good use of communication channels. For instance, it logged and replied online to each of the estimated 300,000 comments received on its latest assessment report, published in 2007. But unless it is prepared to accept a more accurate picture of how scientific evidence is compiled, such transparency will not be sufficient.
The media, too, must improve its understanding and description of science. It often demands a black-and-white picture of scientific evidence, rather than a more nuanced description based on the social nature of scientific inquiry. This undervalues the true robustness of the scientific process and undermines the strength of political decisions based on conclusions emerging from it.
It’s easy enough to get the emails and the other files. A firsthand look will give you the right to draw a conclusion. There are 1073 text files, so it will take a while. Interestingly, I was unable to cherry pick anything that wasn’t about fudging, faking, supressing dissent, ousting editors, etc.
It didn’t take thousands of scientists to conspire- it only took a handful to fake the data everybody else relied on.
The person who deserves the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism is Steve McIntyre at http://climateaudit.org/ where dissection of the details is being done. The trick was to HIDE.
Is there a synonym for the word HIDE than means anything other than HIDE?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html the apocalyptics were disgusting people for a long time over at IPCC. note Pielke in the old posts, too.
If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn’t tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don’t believe the theory is right, does he?
The UN served this to the children of the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9mjBUSDng
This makes me very angry.
CO2 is not a pollutant nor will the climate be affected by 40 trillion dollars worth of lightweight, highly reflective Precautionary Headgear guaranteed to keep you cool in any weather. What’s the benefit of a multi-trillion dollar carbon derivatives bubble?
From an 11 year old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04 home schooled, I’ll bet a dollar.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660 best aggregation (with reference links)
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/ individual plots of raw australian data. more fraud revealed.
She deserves the Pulitzer too.
Norman Davies on propaganda
Five Rules of Propaganda:
1) endless repetition, repeating the same messages over and over with different variations and combinations
2. Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition with slander and crude parodies
3. Unanimity: presenting your point of view as if every right headed person agrees with it while smearing those who doubt it using appeals of famous people, experts and so called consensus; hiding/ excluding others from the underlying basis / information of your position.
4. Transfusion: manipulating the prevailing values of the public to your own advantage
5. Simplification: reducing all facts into a comparison between ‘good and evil’ and ‘friends and enemies’
What the fellows at East Anglia and elsewhere were doing was not science.
When you actually put your own eyes on the raw data, you see what you see.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
Scratch the surface and global warming is a fraud to the bone.
It is Mann made.
Jones ’stepped aside’, Mann ‘under investigation, Gore cancels Copenhagen speech, APA petition demands repudiation of the fraud, senators investigating on the hill…
The emails and programmer’s notes reveal the vast context of ten years of intellectual corruption. They were not doing science- they were disgracing it.
The globe has been getting warmer. That’s why you can plant corn in Iowa and wheat in Kansas and why Canadians frolic in the snow. The glaciers melted. I’ll have more of that, please.
The IPCC will investigate itself.
Already 1700 subjects (scientists) have been compelled to sign a loyalty oath affirming the outcome of it in advance of its completion, so you may be sure consensus will emerge in due course.
Meanwhile, the world turns without their help or hindrance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019821/climategate-with-business-interests-like-these-are-we-really-sure-dr-rajendra-pachauri-is-fit-to-head-the-ipcc/
A confluence of interest.
Dear Dave, thank you for your comment. Unsuprisingly, we take a very different view from you on this topic but appreciate you reaching out; here is a link to an article which you may be interested to read: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html .
Ttwo things:
1. “The emails suggest that some university researchers may have selected favourable data in their publications to boost arguments about the severity of climate change and its origins in human activity.”
Selected favourable data? You appear to be suggesting there’s evidence of cherrypicking – I haven’t seen emails that show this happened. Could you indicate which emails you think support your view?
2. I agree that there’s a public view of scientists as “lords of certainty”, and that’s wrong. But it’s risky conflating the combative tangle of scientific progress – human and messy – with the objective reality of scientific results. The social nature of scientific inquiry doesn’t undermine the very real results science discovers. Could you clarify your views on this?
Dear Dan,
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding the evidence for cherrypicking, the article is taken from the editorial at scidev.net, which we chose to reproduce in part as an item which may be of interest to our members. We consider scidev.net a reputable source, but if you would like to contact them directly regarding this matter, the relevant e-mail address is: editor@scidev.net.
As to the conflation of the combative tangle of the scientific process and the objective reality of scientific results, there is certainly a risk that some audiences may conclude that all science is to be distrusted. However, scientific results cannot be totally divorced from the process which lead to their discovery- as ‘climategate’ shows, scientific results projected as unassailable truths can become a dangerous hostage to fortune. In reality, scientific results are constantly being refined as we improve our levels of understanding. This does not negate our current levels of knowledge, nor mean that no action should be taken until we have 100% certainty about something, but instead simply recognises that our scientific understanding may yet be clarified even further in the future. This level of nuance is very difficult to convey via a media which needs a good headline, but the very fine line between scientific objectivity and social construction should nonethless be followed, and attempts to distort or tarnish scientific objectivity in light of this social nuance should be firmly addressed.